1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s KRW 34,100,000 for the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s payment thereof from January 23, 2014.

1. Summary of the parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s primary claim was ordered by the Defendant’s employees C on March 11, 2013, and supplied 20,000 liters via an amount equivalent to KRW 34,100,000 (including value-added tax) to the gas station located E at Namyang-si, which is operated by the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid oil price of KRW 34,100,000 and delay damages therefor. 2) Even if the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not conclude the oil supply contract, even if the Plaintiff did not supply the oil supply contract, the Defendant is obligated to return the oil price of KRW 34,100,000 without any legal cause and sustained damages equivalent to that of the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion is merely a fact that the Defendant received 20,000 liters from I on March 13, 2013, and paid 31,200,000 won to I, and there is no fact that the Defendant was supplied with 20,000 liters from the Plaintiff on March 11, 2013.

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. The key issue of the instant case is whether the Plaintiff supplied 20,000 liters via the Defendant on March 11, 2013, and thus, the issue is whether or not the Plaintiff supplied 20,000 liters to the Defendant (the purpose of the instant case was not to dispute the supply price of oil in addition to the fact of supplying oil in itself).

Facts of recognition

1) The defendant is a company that runs the petroleum selling business, etc. (the representative director is J, but the actual operator is K.

(2) On February 13, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased oil from the oil retailer and sold it to the oil retailer and then sold it to the oil retailer, and is an interim seller of oil, which is called “halfway.” (2) The Defendant is a corporation L (hereinafter “L”) by introducing C around February 13, 2013.